A man and woman are legally divorced by law, but she is still sealed to him in the temple (in some cases)

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Another interesting situation and complication of all of this.  I'm more and more convinced sealing doesn't quite work the way we think it should. 

I think there are lots of things pertaining to eternity that do not work the way we think they will!

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

In respect of your disinterest in spending eternity with your husband, I am reminded of a C. S. Lewis quote:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, 
to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may 
one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted 
to worship

Found in Goodreads.

Edited to add CS Lewis quote.

In your case, I think this is wise counsel. However, when it comes to eternal life, everything is based on what we think, feel, believe, and act upon while on earth. That is the whole point, supposedly, of our being here. So I am very, very, very uncomfortable with telling anyone that their conclusions, based on years of experience, aren't valid. Or that they will turn into a different person after they die and forget all they know.

Perhaps it bothers me more because it has commonly been used to placate and patronize divorcees' who don't enjoy the advantages given to men when it comes to sealings.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

In your case, I think this is wise counsel. However, when it comes to eternal life, everything is based on what we think, feel, believe, and act upon while on earth. That is the whole point, supposedly, of our being here. So I am very, very, very uncomfortable with telling anyone that their conclusions, based on years of experience, aren't valid. Or that they will turn into a different person after they die and forget all they know.

Perhaps it bothers me more because it has commonly been used to placate and patronize divorcees' who don't enjoy the advantages given to men when it comes to sealings.

Oh, I don't doubt that you make a good point.  

For example, I would never try to tell anyone who was enduring emotional abuse from their spouse that all they had to do was wait until the Resurrection and it would be all OK at that point. 

But sometimes I wonder just how much those who abuse others in this life are going to hate themselves later for it?  Not just because of the reward they reap for it, but also because surely they weren't evil when they were in the pre-existence, or else they wouldn't have kept their first estate.  And knowing how they had mistreated people, wouldn't their grief be overwhelming, to discover who they really were?  This is why I feel some sympathy for those who turn out to be monsters, or at least very bad, in this life.  

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

  It may be that in a more perfect state you will find your husband perfectly acceptable!  . . .

In respect of your disinterest in spending eternity with your husband, I am reminded of a C. S. Lewis quote:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, 
to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may 
one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted 
to worship

Found in Goodreads.

Edited to add CS Lewis quote.

I will go ahead and say that I am extremely hard to live with too, not one sided.

And I am saying this with humor, I loved your personal experience, but this type of mention, which also I think there is some prophet quote along the same lines . . . it is annoying to me, lol (big laugh) . . . because the same thing could be said that you could pick almost any stranger off the street and have the same wonderful eternal possibility happen.  The only thing my husband and I have going for us, is that we happen to be two strangers that already have children in common.  So there's that.  Otherwise we will be starting from square one, the same as if I chose some other random, mostly good LDS guy.

[Duncan]

I don't want to seem judgy.... but there are some legally intact marriages in the Church that are just that, the couple are simply roomates for whatever reason. I know 4 couples like that in the Church and one finally got divorced after their one son killed himself after his GF broke up with him. He couldn't fathom going back home to that kind of relationship his folks had and he did himself a mischief, which is soooooooooooo sad. I can't see God saying to a married but miserable couple sorry but you're sealed and you're stuck with each other now, so i'm sure other arrangements can be made. Another situation is where someone doesn't live up to their Temple covenants despite being sealed, I HT a couple like that. She, for Heaven only knows what reason won't divorce the guy and she's wasting her life with him. So, God won't force someone to be with an unrighteous spouse for eternity as if the one spouse got in on the other's righteousness. I am divorced and I doubt i'd be sealed to my ex in the next life. I hope to get remarried one day and "all yall" are invited! provided you bring Nanaimo Bars besides of which if Julia Louis Dreyfus isn't married then I get first dibs

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think there are lots of things pertaining to eternity that do not work the way we think they will!

I don't think anything in eternity works the way we think they will.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

In your case, I think this is wise counsel. However, when it comes to eternal life, everything is based on what we think, feel, believe, and act upon while on earth. That is the whole point, supposedly, of our being here. So I am very, very, very uncomfortable with telling anyone that their conclusions, based on years of experience, aren't valid. Or that they will turn into a different person after they die and forget all they know.

Perhaps it bothers me more because it has commonly been used to placate and patronize divorcees' who don't enjoy the advantages given to men when it comes to sealings.

That we don't know what it is going to be like is the best reason outside of being happier to try and fix things the way we think is best now imo.

Why assume something is necessary when it is much more likely to be unnecessary because the next life is way beyond the restrictions here?

Unless something is revealed to be done in a certain way, work with it until it works here and now imo.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

However, when it comes to eternal life, everything is based on what we think, feel, believe, and act upon while on earth. That is the whole point, supposedly, of our being here. So I am very, very, very uncomfortable with telling anyone that their conclusions, based on years of experience, aren't valid. Or that they will turn into a different person after they die and forget all they know.

I don't know how much I agree with this.  At first glance it reads true but I don't think it considers the significant changes death and resurrection will unavoidably cause.

[JLHPROF]

I only bring this up because I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread, but Brigham Young had some very clear teachings on this subject, teachings I don't think any subsequent prophet disavowed.  Perhaps they should at least be considered in such a doctrinal discussion.

[mrmarklin]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet they can be forced to remain sealed in this life. So stating that claims of force are incorrect is itself incorrect. If a divorced couple wants to be fully separated from each other, with no further ties, yet the church requires them to remain sealed, it can be difficult for the couple or individual to deal with. They may feel that their agency is being usurped by the church.

This is AFAIK untrue. Cancellations are routinely granted. And even more so if the woman wants to remarry and be sealed to her new husband. 

 

I personally know three divorced people who have elected to keep their sealings for reasons I won't go into here.  One is a man.

 

The old days where cancellations were hard to obtain are long behind us.

Edited May 3, 2017 by mrmarklin

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I only bring this up because I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread, but Brigham Young had some very clear teachings on this subject, teachings I don't think any subsequent prophet disavowed.  Perhaps they should at least be considered in such a doctrinal discussion.

The thing that I seem to recall, is that if Brigham was approached by a brother who wanted to shed a wife, he would insist he keep her as long as she was content to stay with him, but if a sister came to him and wanted out of a marriage, he was likely to grant it without too much argument.  I may be stating this incorrectly.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I see a distinction where you probably don't (which is fine).

1- I don't see a relationship that exists only a paper as being something either party is forced into.  Since there is no consequence to it (no actual relationship at all and exists in word only), i see the relationship as irrelevant as either or both parties want it to be.  

2- I have heard of women who felt that being sealed to the spouse was too emotionally damaging to deal with and they were allowed to have the sealing cancelled without being sealed to someone else.  I can certainly imagine why that would be emotionally necessary if a spouse was abusive in any way.

I'm guessing that some of the church's pushback on just canceling sealings when divorces happen has to do with the sacred nature of the sealing and the covenants made in regards to it, coupled with how the number one reason for divorce seems to be 'we don't get along anymore' (irreconcilable differences).

While I think there are very valid reasons for those covenants to be severed, it makes sense to me that the process to sever them be taken incredibly seriously.  

1- I'm sure many will agree with that. But for the person who wants complete distance and separation from a former spouse who may have been unfaithful or even abusive, the church refusing to grant sealing cancellation may very well feel like the church is forcing them into a relationship, or at least not letting them fully escape one. It's a mind game that can have consequences.

2- I have too. But I've also heard of women who aren't allowed to do that. I even knew one lady who had her paperwork stop dead in its tracks because her former husband wouldn't consent to the cancellation. That kind of power dynamic is unfair, harmful, and completely unnecessary.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Not true. I was told my ex did not agree. Nor would they always be able to track down exes.  I'm pretty sure the purpose of contacting the ex is to make sure they aren't hiding something. Like my friend whose ex had a criminal background and pretty bad behavior. They didn't give him a sealing clearance.  

I don't doubt that is the case sometimes. But it's not always. There is tons of variability with this stuff, often times starting at the local leader who puts up additional roadblocks if they feel a cancellation is inappropriate.

Also, effort will be made to contact the previous spouse and request a response about the cancellation. I've known of a very bitter ex-husband who totally submarined his ex-wife's attempt for a cancellation out of spite. His response made terrible accusations against the former wife while also pleading with the 1st Presidency not to cancel the sealing. He was not sealed to anyone else and was afraid for his eternal salvation (or so he said) if he was no longer sealed to a spouse. I obviously can't say how much the ex's letter impacted the brethren, but that cancellation was not granted.

Therefore the woman who wanted to feel totally free of her ex was still tied to him by the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

This is AFAIK untrue. Cancellations are routinely granted. And even more so if the woman wants to remarry and be sealed to her new husband. 

 

I personally know three divorced people who have elected to keep their sealings for reasons I won't go into here.  One is a man.

 

The old days where cancellations were hard to obtain are long behind us.

Don't be so sure about that. It may be easier now than it was in the past but I don't really know because my experience is only with the present. But I have worked with many individuals seeking cancelation or clearance. They are not always granted. Sometimes I understood the reason but sometimes it was a mystery. If sealings were always granted they wouldn't require 1st Presidency approval.

 

[Jane_Doe]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't doubt that is the case sometimes. But it's not always. There is tons of variability with this stuff, often times starting at the local leader who puts up additional roadblocks if they feel a cancellation is inappropriate.

Also, effort will be made to contact the previous spouse and request a response about the cancellation. I've known of a very bitter ex-husband who totally submarined his ex-wife's attempt for a cancellation out of spite. His response made terrible accusations against the former wife while also pleading with the 1st Presidency not to cancel the sealing. He was not sealed to anyone else and was afraid for his eternal salvation (or so he said) if he was no longer sealed to a spouse. I obviously can't say how much the ex's letter impacted the brethren, but that cancellation was not granted.

Therefore the woman who wanted to feel totally free of her ex was still tied to him by the church.

Except she's not tied to him at all.  Even now.

A piece of paper saying they were sealed has absolutely zero effect if either of them chooses not to be sealed to the other.  It also has zero effect in the eternities if either spouse refuses to forsake their sins (whether this life or the next).  So every abusive spouse who refuses to repent- their sealing ordinance is rendered null.  The ONLY people whom are sealed in the hereafter are Christ-like perfected people.  There are NO greedy spouse, no abuse, no cheating, no sin of any type in these bonds.  

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I'm sure many will agree with that. But for the person who wants complete distance and separation from a former spouse who may have been unfaithful or even abusive, the church refusing to grant sealing cancellation may very well feel like the church is forcing them into a relationship, or at least not letting them fully escape one. It's a mind game that can have consequences.

Again, an abusive/unfaithful husband* who refuses to ever repent already voided their own sealing ordinance.  Their wife cannot be sealed with him in the eternities even if she wanted to be!  

(*All of these apply for gender roles reversed too).  

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The thing that I seem to recall, is that if Brigham was approached by a brother who wanted to shed a wife, he would insist he keep her as long as she was content to stay with him, but if a sister came to him and wanted out of a marriage, he was likely to grant it without too much argument.  I may be stating this incorrectly.
 

Some of Brigham's teachings on divorce include:
 

Civil Divorce has no effect on an eternal sealing

• I have said a number of times, and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him. If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you. When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me. I tell the brethren and Sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something. I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce. For what? My services? No, for his foolishness. If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership. Do you think you have done so when you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood—it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying—“We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other,” &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this. There is a law for you to be obedient, and humble and faithful.

 

No sealing cancellation for righteous priesthood holders

•  Hear it, O ye Elders of Israel; and ye sisters, hear it: There is no ecclesiastical law that you know anything about, to free a wife from a man to whom she has been sealed, if he honors his Priesthood.

No divorce allowed for men (at least in polygamy)

• President Young said that when a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce. He had told the brethren that if they would break the law, they should pay for it; but he did not want them to come to him for a divorce as it was not right....[Young went on to say that]:
  It is not right for the brethren to divorce their wives the way they do. I am determined that if men don't stop divorcing their wives, I shall stop sealing. Men shall not abuse the gifts of God and the privileges the way they are doing. Nobody can say that I have any interest in the matter, [p.12] for I charge nothing for sealings, but I do charge for divorcing. I want the brethren to stop divorcing their wives for it is not right.

 

 

We don't have to agree with Brigham on what he taught here, but if we are discussing doctrines relating to divorce and sealing cancellations then these should be included.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't doubt that is the case sometimes. But it's not always. There is tons of variability with this stuff, often times starting at the local leader who puts up additional roadblocks if they feel a cancellation is inappropriate.

Also, effort will be made to contact the previous spouse and request a response about the cancellation. I've known of a very bitter ex-husband who totally submarined his ex-wife's attempt for a cancellation out of spite. His response made terrible accusations against the former wife while also pleading with the 1st Presidency not to cancel the sealing. He was not sealed to anyone else and was afraid for his eternal salvation (or so he said) if he was no longer sealed to a spouse. I obviously can't say how much the ex's letter impacted the brethren, but that cancellation was not granted.

Therefore the woman who wanted to feel totally free of her ex was still tied to him by the church.

Yes, an effort is made. My bishop asked me where my ex lived. I had no idea. They took the time to find him. (And had they not, my request would have proceeded.) And I said that leader roulette is involved. I can't believe you are instructing women who have experienced this.

 From my experience, the buck stops at the Stake Prez. I really doubt they are up in SLC making these life altering decisions based on a few letters on their own. My SP totally backed me, he was so excited when the cancellation came through that he ran over to my house to tell me. So my first reaction to your story is that the SP was MIA. He could have countered these accusations, the request to the ex almost certainly came from them and was sent to them. SLC isn't going to do the grunt work. There is also the possibility there was something true in the accusations. As I said, it happened in reverse to a close friend who prevented her lawbreaking deadbeat ex husband's attempt to be sealed. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Except she's not tied to him at all.  Even now.

A piece of paper saying they were sealed has absolutely zero effect if either of them chooses not to be sealed to the other.  It also has zero effect in the eternities if either spouse refuses to forsake their sins (whether this life or the next).  So every abusive spouse who refuses to repent- their sealing ordinance is rendered null.  The ONLY people whom are sealed in the hereafter are Christ-like perfected people.  There are NO greedy spouse, no abuse, no cheating, no sin of any type in these bonds.  

I think you're getting hung up on your personal example. I'm not talking about your example. I've attempted to describe the process and how I've seen it work. There will always be exceptions.

But saying that there is "zero effect" isn't accurate. For the person trying to become free of the relationship, having the church maintain that there is still a connection or bond can be emotionally destabilizing and hurtful. I'm sure many would view it just like you. They may not see it as a big deal. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that some people aren't effected and see it as a big deal. If it's not a big deal, why would the church EVER reject a request for cancellation? When someone trusts that decision as coming from a prophet, then that can have a negative emotional impact.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Except she's not tied to him at all.  Even now.

A piece of paper saying they were sealed has absolutely zero effect if either of them chooses not to be sealed to the other.  It also has zero effect in the eternities if either spouse refuses to forsake their sins (whether this life or the next).  So every abusive spouse who refuses to repent- their sealing ordinance is rendered null.  The ONLY people whom are sealed in the hereafter are Christ-like perfected people.  There are NO greedy spouse, no abuse, no cheating, no sin of any type in these bonds.

But sin can be repented of.
There is no unrepented sin of any kind in the Celestial Kingdom.
So if a husband and wife who were sealed both make it to the Celestial Kingdom they ARE without sin.  So for what cause could that sealing be nullified?

I do believe agency plays a role, but the balance between agency and covenant is one I think we have yet to determine.  I don't think God allows us to back out of covenants without cause just because we think we want to at some point.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes, an effort is made. My bishop asked me where my ex lived. I had no idea. They took the time to find him. (And had they not, my request would have proceeded.) And I said that leader roulette is involved. I can't believe you are instructing women who have experienced this.

 From my experience, the buck stops at the Stake Prez. I really doubt they are up in SLC making these life altering decisions based on a few letters on their own. My SP totally backed me, he was so excited when the cancellation came through that he ran over to my house to tell me. So my first reaction to your story is that the SP was MIA. He could have countered these accusations, the request to the ex almost certainly came from them and was sent to them. SLC isn't going to do the grunt work. There is also the possibility there was something true in the accusations. As I said, it happened in reverse to a close friend who prevented her lawbreaking deadbeat ex husband's attempt to be sealed. 

I'm not sure why you are responding in such a hostile fashion. If it's all right with you I'll share my experience with this as well as I have multiple data points and experiences. I stated a general process. You said that wasn't true because it wasn't your experience. I validated that experiences will differ based on leadership roulette. But that doesn't mean the general process I outlined wasn't true, like you claimed. Your experience is not universal.

 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

 

We don't have to agree with Brigham on what he taught here, but if we are discussing doctrines relating to divorce and sealing cancellations then these should be included.

 You prefer dead prophets over living ones, as you have made clear,  but that does not align with church teachings. There is no debate that we are instructed to follow the living prophet for our age and time. This is but one quote, https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-7-continuous-revelation-through-living-prophets?lang=eng

 

Quote

 

To peoples of past dispensations and ages, the most important prophet was the one then living, teaching, and revealing the will of the Lord in their time. In each of the past dispensations, prophets have been raised up by the Lord as his spokesmen to the people of that particular age and for the specific problems of that age.

It is the present living prophet who is our leader, our teacher. It is from him we take direction in the modern world.

 

 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

 You prefer dead prophets over living ones, as you have made clear,  but that does not align with church teachings. There is no debate that we are instructed to follow the living prophet for our age and time. This is but one quote, https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-7-continuous-revelation-through-living-prophets?lang=eng

 

 

I'm finding myself taking snippets from a number of these prophets and throwing out that which I don't like.  I'm as likely to quote Joseph Smith to support my thoughts and feelings than I am Hinckley or Monson.  But then again, on some stuff I'd likely eschew Joseph in favor or Hinkley or Monson's thoughts.  In some cases I may eschew them all, though.  I'm probably worse than JHLProf in the eyes of our modern Church.  Oh well.  What can you do? 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes, an effort is made. My bishop asked me where my ex lived. I had no idea. They took the time to find him. (And had they not, my request would have proceeded.) And I said that leader roulette is involved. I can't believe you are instructing women who have experienced this.

 From my experience, the buck stops at the Stake Prez. I really doubt they are up in SLC making these life altering decisions based on a few letters on their own. My SP totally backed me, he was so excited when the cancellation came through that he ran over to my house to tell me. So my first reaction to your story is that the SP was MIA. He could have countered these accusations, the request to the ex almost certainly came from them and was sent to them. SLC isn't going to do the grunt work. There is also the possibility there was something true in the accusations. As I said, it happened in reverse to a close friend who prevented her lawbreaking deadbeat ex husband's attempt to be sealed. 

I think there's a lot of truth to the fact that most of it depends on the local leaders (and most of the actual work is done by the bishop. The stake president includes a letter as well and sends it off). We just had a sealing cancellation go through (sealing to another spouse after civil marriage following civil divorce), and one of the things required on the application is proof of an attempt to contact the ex-spouse. I used to have to type the letter myself, but the form prints a form letter with the leader and recipient info pasted in. The letter asks them to send a letter to the leader explaining how they feel about the proposed action and giving any concerns. If no letter is received, leaders are to upload a scan of the certified mail receipt, showing that the letter was signed for and received. I could see failure to include proof of an attempt to let the ex-spouse speak their piece resulting in denial of the application.

And, applications for sealing clearance/sealing cancellation are denied all the time as well. They are not just rubber-stamped by Salt Lake.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Except she's not tied to him at all.  Even now.

A piece of paper saying they were sealed has absolutely zero effect if either of them chooses not to be sealed to the other.  It also has zero effect in the eternities if either spouse refuses to forsake their sins (whether this life or the next).  So every abusive spouse who refuses to repent- their sealing ordinance is rendered null.  The ONLY people whom are sealed in the hereafter are Christ-like perfected people.  There are NO greedy spouse, no abuse, no cheating, no sin of any type in these bonds.  

You are absolutely correct in this, but I have to agree with HJW that there is a high emotional cost and some IRL damage. For example, a widow who has a sealing is made to choose between that husband and a second husband. It reduces her chances of remarriage unless she gets a cancellation. Or the new husband has to accept that, technically, his children are sealed to the first husband. 

I think the sealing policies (and I do say policy not doctrine) are doing the most damage to women. I don't mince words.What gets lost in this, because women take the brunt of it, is that men (particularly the polygamy advocates) don't realize how it places their own sealings in the hands of women. The only way a man can guarantee an intact sealing under the current policy is to make sure his wife dies first.